Dunkirk

[Hkindiana]

I just got back from seeing it, and I was VERY DISAPPOINTED. The director tried to be too "artsy fartsy". Big ships sank in SECONDS after only one bomb hit, rifle bullets pierced ships hulls, not NEARLY enough men were shown on the beaches, and not NEARLY enough ships were shown in the water. I also was expecting to read before the credits a little history stating how many ships were involved, and how many men were saved. I will never watch it again. There was a little action, but it was very disjointed. Save your money and wait for it to come to red box if you want to see it. I own most WWII movies, but I WILL NOT be adding this one to jy collection. Did I say I was VERY DISAPPOINTED with the movie?

 

[Spear Dane]

Well that sucks. Been waiting for a year for this to come out.

 

[rob63]

I went and saw it today. Absolutely wonderful, best war flick I have seen in a long, long time. One of the best movies of any genre I have seen in recent years. The sweeping views, the simple honesty of the story, the acting, the pulsating soundtrack, the minimal dialogue; it all adds up to an amazing way to tell the story of Dunkirk. I honestly don't know what could have made it better, it's an outstanding film. If you were wanting to see it, GO! The audience clapped at the end, how often do you see that?

 

[whiskeytangofoxtrot]

It's ok, nothing spectacular. Just lots of noise and music trying to keep you in suspense.

 

[Hkindiana]

I went and saw it today. Absolutely wonderful, best war flick I have seen in a long, long time. One of the best movies of any genre I have seen in recent years. The sweeping views, the simple honesty of the story, the acting, the pulsating soundtrack, the minimal dialogue; it all adds up to an amazing way to tell the story of Dunkirk. I honestly don't know what could have made it better, it's an outstanding film. If you were wanting to see it, GO! The audience clapped at the end, how often do you see that?

Boy. We sure did not see the same movie. The audience in your theatre clapped at the end? Did you by chance see it in Bloomington? The people from the theatre I was in just walked out shaking their heads.

 

[BluePig]

Just got back from the afternoon show...
It was kind of disappointing.
I expected more lead-up to the beach.
The air scenes were quite good.
Needed more Enfield action.

 

[87iroc]

I read the director tried to neuter it of history. Didn't want to produce a 'dated' movie...I was all excited to go see it. Will probably wait to rent it after reading that.

 

[rob63]

Boy. We sure did not see the same movie. The audience in your theatre clapped at the end? Did you by chance see it in Bloomington? The people from the theatre I was in just walked out shaking their heads.

Nope, saw it at the Imax in Noblesville and yes, everyone loved it. I love history, WWII in particular, have been studying it for close to 50 years now. Nonetheless, I had no expectations of what I wanted the movie to be. I simply went and watched it for the movie it is and thoroughly enjoyed it.

I read the director tried to neuter it of history. Didn't want to produce a 'dated' movie...I was all excited to go see it. Will probably wait to rent it after reading that.

That just simply isn't true. It is not a documentary, but it is a period piece that tells the story of what happened at that place and time. Obviously, opinions differ on how well it does it, but it is not neutered of history.

 

[Hkindiana]

It is not a documentary, but it is a period piece that tells the story of what happened at that place and time. Obviously, opinions differ on how well it does it, but it is not neutered of history.

Yes, IT IS VERY NEUTERED OF HISTORY for a movie entitled "Dunkirk". If it had been called "escape from the beach" or "random events that happened during Dunkirk" I wouldn't EXPECT any history, but then it would not have had the draw for so many people who KNOW the history and wanted to see it in cinimatic form. This movie was touted as "a masterful telling of the Dunkirk evacuation", which it was not. If I go to a movie entitled "Houdini", then I EXPECT him to be portrayed in it, with at least some information about him. Otherwise, it should just be entitled "a magician", but it would not have the "draw" of a "Houdini" branded film.
I fully expected to be inspired by historical facts presented in this movie, but the REAL truths of "the miricle of Dunkirk" were not even covered. According to the history books, when it was obvious that the British and French troops would be annialated, King George asked to people of England to spend a day of prayer, because his thoughts were that only a "divine intervention" would allow the troops to be saved. The British people responded in droves with one of the largest mass prayers in Christian history. Then, three events happened, that combined, became the catalyst for "the miracle at Dunkirk". First, the weather in Europe, in and around Dunkirk was so bad that German planes were grounded, which allowed all of the troops to gather on the beaches without being attacked. Second, for some reason Hitler ordered his armies to stop the attack, and not move towards the beaches any further than they had already advanced. Third, the weather over the normally rough and choppy English Channel was calm and peaceful, with a heavy fog for protection, which allowed so many of the small boats (which NORMALLY would be incapable of doing so) to safely cross the channel to save the troops. This movie, as so many of hollywood movies have been doing for years, rewrites the narrative to suit their needs. There is NO mention of King George making his plea to the populace, NO mention of the prayers, NO mention of the weather that appeared to come in answer to the prayers, and NO mention of Hitler halting his troops (as a matter of fact, there are NO GERMANS shown in the movie at all). This could have been an "inspirational" movie, but that would probably not go over well with the "hollywood agenda". So, the "critics" will probably nominate Christopher Nolan for academy awards, for his "artistic rendering and RETELLING OF HISTORY" whose two main characters were military DESERTERS, even though there was NO SIGNIFICANT storyline, OR HISTORY, in the movie.

 

[femurphy77]

I've read two different versions of why Hitler didn't wipe out the BEF on the beaches; one was that didn't want to thoroughly **** off the British and have to deal with a hardened Army or populace when it came time to invade GB. The other was that Goering convinced Hitler that his Luftwaffe could do it more efficiently and with fewer losses than sending in ground troops. Goering was still trying to prove that air power was a very effective part of any military endeavor and to this point it had been somewhat irrelevant.

 

[Birds Away]

I haven't seen the movie. I have read that nothing is said about the heroic French First Army without whose bravery and sacrifice there could have been no evacuation.

 

[BE Mike]

Now I'm all confused about whether or not to see the movie, although I haven't seen anything of any value in months at the theaters. I go to the theater to be entertained, and not to see historically accurate portrayals. I liked "Fury", "The Saving of Private Ryan" and even "Inglorious Bastards". I'll probably be entertained.

 

[Hkindiana]

Now I'm all confused about whether or not to see the movie, although I haven't seen anything of any value in months at the theaters. I go to the theater to be entertained, and not to see historically accurate portrayals. I liked "Fury", "The Saving of Private Ryan" and even "Inglorious Bastards". I'll probably be entertained.

Dunkirk is NOTHING like those movies. No plot, no character development, no Germans, and the only real action is the aerial battles.

 

[femurphy77]

Now I'm all confused about whether or not to see the movie, although I haven't seen anything of any value in months at the theaters. I go to the theater to be entertained, and not to see historically accurate portrayals. I liked "Fury", "The Saving of Private Ryan" and even "Inglorious Bastards". I'll probably be entertained.

It's hard to categorize this movie as a great war movie because there is very little "action" in it. I can't call it an historic representation either because it seems to leave entirely TOO much out. I guess if you're looking for one persons interpretation of how he would tell a 70 plus year old story then you should be o.k.

 

[PhxCollier]

Dunkirk is NOTHING like those movies. No plot, no character development, no Germans, and the only real action is the aerial battles.

What he said ^^^^^

not worth $12.50 per person

 

[rob63]

I haven't seen the movie. I have read that nothing is said about the heroic French First Army without whose bravery and sacrifice there could have been no evacuation.

That is true. It is told entirely from the viewpoint of a few individuals involved, all of them British, and consequently you only experience what happens to those individuals. The principal characters include a few soldiers, a Spitfire pilot, a Navy commander, and a civilian using his small boat in the evacuation. The opening scene involves a British soldier running from rifle fire and he is saved when he reaches barricades manned by French soldiers. He then proceeds to the beaches where soldiers are lined up waiting to be evacuated, thus, the movie essentially begins with the evacuation. At the end of the movie, there is discussion between two commanders of the fact that the British soldiers have been evacuated and it is time to try to save the French. It might be possible to conclude from those scenes that there were French soldiers involved and that they were holding the Germans back while the British were evacuated, but apparently it can also be upsetting that it isn't spelled out as such. I don't know, somewhere along the line I missed the part where it was billed as a documentary.

Now I'm all confused about whether or not to see the movie, although I haven't seen anything of any value in months at the theaters. I go to the theater to be entertained, and not to see historically accurate portrayals. I liked "Fury", "The Saving of Private Ryan" and even "Inglorious Bastards". I'll probably be entertained.

If you liked those, I'm sure you will enjoy this. Go back to the first post in this thread and watch the trailer again. It is a pretty good preview of what the movie is like.

 

[Alpo]

Now I'm all confused about whether or not to see the movie, although I haven't seen anything of any value in months at the theaters. I go to the theater to be entertained, and not to see historically accurate portrayals. I liked "Fury", "The Saving of Private Ryan" and even "Inglorious Bastards". I'll probably be entertained.

It really isn't the enormity of the dire situation of the British at Dunkirk. It doesn't tell of the mistakes made by British general officers or French intelligence that led up to the retreat to Dunkirk. It mentions Churchill in passing, but it doesn't show the Churchill of Gallipoli or Dunkirk...it keeps his reputation intact.

But the flying scenes were great!

 

[Alamo]

Just got back from seeing Dunkirk in the 70mm format. Good to Excellent. Not Great, in the way of Patton or Band of Brothers. But especially when compared with the current line up of movies, i.e. remakes, socially-justiced comic books, and the like, this is a wonderful movie.

Not a documentary, it is the fictional telling of a few events from Operation Dynamo as seen by some soldiers (one in particular), some Spitfire pilots (one in particular), and the man-and-two-boys crew of a civilian pleasure craft pressed into service. It took me a moment to catch onto the fact that the same scene is often played from all three points of view - e.g. a ship is threatened and bombed by a German aircraft, and we see if from the soldier's POV (who is on another boat in the vicinity), the civilian boat's crew (who sees the attack coming and realizes they may have to pickup survivors at risk to themselves), and the Spitfire pilot (low on fuel, inop fuel gage, now faced with the choice of trying to fly home on his reserve or engage the Germans, and likely run out of fuel). This is run sequentially rather than round-robin, so you see the entire soldier's POV first, then the civilian boat crew, then the Spitfire pilot. At least that's how I remember it.

So it doesn't go into the higher level machinations of organizing Operation Dynamo or the role of the French, and there's only one brief verbal clue as to why the Brits on the beach the only enemy is the Luftwaffe and there aren't any panzers rolling over them. It is focused on people on the scene who are having a really bad day and having to deal with it. Nolan doesn't use a lot of dialogue to tell the story, it's mostly action speaking for itself. You don't get a backstory on everyone, you see what they are doing to get through the moment.

There's probably some subtext to this about following the rules and discipline in adversity and such -- I haven't had time to think it through. Most of the British soldiers are neatly queued up on the beach and the mole -- and get shot and blown up on a frequent basis. The soldier protagonist tries a couple illicit non-queueing techniques to get onboard an outbound vessel -- and gets bombed and shot at and darn near drowned for his trouble. The Spitfire pilot's fuel gage is rendered inop early on, but he elects to continue on -- possibly saving many soldiers, but putting a couple scarce resources, namely a trained pilot and a first-class fighter, neither of which Britain had in abundance, at high risk (One of the few dialogue sequences makes the point that the RAF and the RN couldn't affored to throw everything at the evacuation, because they will need ships and planes in the near future to fend off Nazi invasion). The civilian boat owner, instead of handing over his commandeered boat to a Royal Navy crew, effectively steals his own boat and heads to sea (to Channel?) with a crew of two teenage boys.

Lots of good visuals and dogfight scenes, but more than that to the movie if you look closely.

 

[BE Mike]

Mrs. Miniver was a great movie for its time and was made during WWII. It really hit home the impact of the civilians and their boats during Dunkirk. It is worth a remake IMHO. I'll no doubt take the wifey and see this new movie.

 

[actaeon277]

Just saw it yesterday. Yes, it's not a "war movie" in that there is only a little "shooting".
But the story of Dunkirk they were concentrating on is the evacuation.

Yes, it was sometimes loud. I have it on good authority that explosions and gunfire can be loud.

As for not covering enough about Dunkirk, well, to do the story justice, you'd probably need a mini-series. There's a lot to cover, and they only have a few hours.

About the pilot not turning back and risking the pilot and aircraft. True points, they were both valuable. But, so were those troops. You can make an artillery piece, or guns. But the "lead time" on creating and training a soldier is still pretty long.